DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5

ICRP ref: 4811-3995-3019
14 November 2018

6

7

Annals of the ICRP

8
9
10
11

ICRP PUBLICATION XXX

12
13

15

Radiological Protection from Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Material (NORM) in Industrial Processes

16
17
18
19

Editor-in-Chief

14

20
21
22

C.H. CLEMENT

23

H. FUJITA

Associate Editor

24
25
26
27
28

Authors on behalf of ICRP
…

29
30
31
32

PUBLISHED FOR

33

The International Commission on Radiological Protection

34
35
36
37
38

by

39

[Sage logo]
Please cite this issue as ‘ICRP, 20YY. Title of the annals. ICRP Publication XXX,
Ann. ICRP 00 (0).’1

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Abstract– The purpose of this Publication is to provide guidance on radiological protection
in industries involving NORM. Industries involving NORM give rise to multiple hazards andthe radiological hazard is not necessarily dominant. Such industries are diverse and may
involve exposure to people and the environment where protective actions need to beconsidered. NORM presents no real prospect of a radiological emergency leading to tissue
reactions or immediate danger for life. However, the accidental release of large volumes of
NORM may result in detrimental effects on the environment, including of radiologicalnature. NORM associated with industrial processes is an existing exposure situation, except
when NORM is used for its radioactive properties which should be addressed on the basis of
the principles of justification (of the actions taken) and optimisation of the protection above
or below appropriate reference levels. Radon and thoron exposures should be managed asrecommended in Publication 126.
An integrated approach to NORM processes is recommended, starting with characterisationof the situation and protection strategies already implemented to manage other workplace
hazards, and then assessing the need for additional actions. The selection and implementationof protection strategies for workers should be a graded response to the magnitude of thehazards. According to the characteristics of the exposure situation, notably the actual andpotential exposure pathways, the individual dose distribution and the prospect for
optimisation, an appropriate reference level can be selected, either below a few mSv per year
or above a few mSv if necessary, but very rarely exceeding 10 mSv per year. In the sameline, control of the workplace and the conditions of work are used to reduce the risk, while
the control of workers enters when adequate protection has not already been achieved withworkplace controls.
A graded approach should be used in implementing requirements. Public exposure should be
dealt with through the control of discharge, waste and residue, after characterisation of thesituation. The reference level for the protection of the public should be selected below a few
mSv per year. The protection of non-human species should be dealt with as part of anenvironmental assessment, taking into account all hazards and impacts. This should include
identification of exposed organisms in the environment and using relevant derived
consideration reference levels (DCRL), to ascertain the magnitude of the impacts and inform
decisions on options for control of exposure.

2

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101

CONTENTSEDITORIAL ............................................................................................................................. 4
MAIN POINTS ......................................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
1.1.
Background .............................................................................................................. 6
1.2.
Scope ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.3.
Structure of this publication ..................................................................................... 9
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPOSURE FROM NORM ................................................ 10
2.1.
Ubiquity and variability.......................................................................................... 10
2.2.
The NORM cycle ................................................................................................... 14
3. THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S SYSTEM OF
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION TO NORM .............................................................. 15
3.1.
Types of exposure situations and categories of exposure ...................................... 15
3.2.
Justification of protection strategies ....................................................................... 17
3.3.
Optimisation of protection...................................................................................... 18
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
TO INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES INVOLVING NORM ................................................ 21
4.1.
Protection of workers ............................................................................................. 21
4.2.
Protection of the public .......................................................................................... 26
4.3.
Protection of the environment ................................................................................ 30
5. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 32
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 33
ANNEX A. ACTIVITIES GIVING RISE TO NORM EXPOSURES .............................. 35
A.1. References .............................................................................................................. 39
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................... 40
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 443

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCEEDITORIAL

102
103
104
109
110

To be drafted

4

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE

MAIN POINTS

111

112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125







Situations involving Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) areexisting exposure situations except when NORM is used for its radioactive
properties.
NORM industrial activities are controllable, and protection is achieved throughoptimisation using reference levels.
Protective actions may need to be considered with regard to external exposure,intake of radioactive material, and radon or thoron inhalation. Radon and thoron
exposures should be managed as recommended in Publication 126.
NORM presents no real prospect of a radiological emergency leading to tissue
reactions or immediate danger to life, but may pose an issue of environmental
contamination.
An integrated and graded approach to protection is recommended, starting withstrategies already implemented to manage other workplace hazards.

5

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

126

127

1.1. Background

128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170

(1) All minerals and raw materials of a geological nature may contain radionuclides ofnatural origin. The main radionuclides of interest are 40K and radionuclides from the 232Th
and 238U decay series. Thorium-232 and 238U decay through a series of radionuclides to stable
isotopes 208Pb and 206Pb, respectively. These decaying radionuclides are known as daughter
radionuclides or progeny. The other primordial radionuclides are of much lower abundance.
(2) For most human activities involving minerals and raw materials, the level of
exposure due to primordial radionuclides decay series is not a concern for radiologicalprotection. However, there are a number of circumstances in which materials containing
natural radionuclides are recovered, processed, used, or moved such that enhanced radiation
exposures may result. Material involved in processes giving rise to these enhanced exposures
is considered to be Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). For example, certain
minerals (e.g. zirconium, monazite), including some that are commercially exploited, may
contain potassium and/or thorium and/or uranium progeny at significant concentrations.
(3) Furthermore, during the extraction of minerals and their processing, theradionuclides may become unevenly distributed between the products, by-products,
discharge, residue or waste arising from the process(es). The radionuclide activity
concentrations may exceed those in the original mineral, sometimes by several orders ofmagnitude, which in turn can significantly increase the exposure of workers and/or membersof the public as well as lead to the contamination of the environment.
(4) Only a few years after the discovery of radioactivity by A. H. Becquerel in 1896,
radon – or “radium emanation” as it was called, was found in petroleum and in natural gas
brought to the surface. In 1898 Marie Curie identified radium and polonium after processing
several tons of pitchblende, an ore with high uranium content. Later, several investigations
led to the first general review of the radioactivity associated with sedimentary rocks,
petroleum, underground water and brines (Monicard, 1952). The discovery of radioactive
scales from natural sources in British and American oil production facilities was firstmentioned in the 1950’s (Schmidt, 2000). However, the potential health, safety andenvironmental risks due to radiation exposure from NORM in the industry were only widely
realised since the 1980’s (Miller et al., 1991).
(5) In Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977), ICRP recognised that some practices may “increase
the level of exposure from the natural background of radiation” (Para. 235) and that there
may be levels of natural radiation that might have to be controlled in much the same way as
for artificial sources. The Commission did not give practical guidance on the principles forsuch control. In the same year, UNSCEAR introduced for the first time a chapter on‘technologically enhanced exposures to natural radiation’ in its report to the General
Assembly (UNSCEAR, 1977).
(6) In Publication 39 (ICRP, 1984) and later in Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991), theCommission proposed principles for limiting exposures of workers and the public to natural
sources of radiation and notably primordial radionuclides and progeny. The Commission
stated that there should be requirements to include some exposures to natural sources as partof occupational exposures when it comes to ‘operations with and storage of materials not
usually regarded as radioactive, but which contain significant traces of natural radionuclides’(ICRP, 1991 Para. 136).

6

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211

(7) In Publication 82 (ICRP, 1999) devoted to the protection of the public against
prolonged exposures, the Commission first acknowledged the term ‘NORM’ by noting:“industrial development has further increased the ‘natural’ exposure of people bytechnologically enhancing the concentrations of radionuclides in naturally occurring
radioactive materials (NORMs)” (Para. 6). The Publication then focused on the application of
the system described in Publication 60 for radiological protection to practices resulting in
prolonged exposure. Optimisation was expected to be applied to ensure that doses were ‘as
low as reasonably achievable’ taking into account economic and social factors. The
Commission later provided detailed guidance on the application of the optimisation principle
in ‘The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process’ (ICRP, 2006, Part2). This publication recommended that dose constraints and dose limits for practices may beappropriate to NORM exposure, but should be applied with ‘care and flexibility’.
(8) In Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a), the Commission revised the system forradiological protection of Publication 60. The approach is now based on the characteristics ofthe radiation exposure situation rather than the process-based approach previously employed.
The system applies to all exposures to ionising radiation, from any source, regardless of sizeor origin, but apply in their entirety only to situations in which either the source of the
exposure or the pathways leading to doses received by individuals can be controlled by somereasonable means.
(9) A major implication of this is that all exposures, including those from naturally
occurring radiation sources, are now within the scope of the system and that the principles ofjustification and optimisation always apply. Exposures from natural sources are considered to
be existing exposure situations.
(10) Publication 104 (ICRP, 2007b) recognised that there is a need for international
consensus on NORM exposure management and that industries involving NORM have been
regulated variably with regard to radiological protection, because the radiological protection
system has been introduced after the start of operation, and existing industrial hygiene
controls already limit the potential for radiation exposure (e.g. control of airborne dust).
Exclusion and exemption of industries involving NORM and activities using numericalcriteria may be useful but lack the quantitative judgement that is also often necessary. Hence,
Publication 104 advocated a graded approach in the management of NORM exposure, taking
into account the prevailing circumstances and the risk to people, with the global aim ofpromoting the protection of workers and public health (Para. 137).
(11) The Commission has recently engaged in a set of Publications dedicated to applying
the system of radiological protection to existing exposure situations. Publication 126 (ICRP,
2014b) updated the recommendations for the protection against exposure to radon.
Publication 132 (ICRP, 2016) is devoted to Radiological Protection from Cosmic Radiationin Aviation. Publications 109 and 111 on Emergency Exposure Situations and Living inLong-term Contaminated Areas following a Radiological Emergency are currently being
updated. A Publication is also in preparation dedicated to exposures resulting fromcontaminated sites from past industrial, military and nuclear activities.

212

1.2. Scope

213
214
215
216

(12) This publication elaborates on management of existing exposure situations withregard to NORM. The Commissions approach to NORM builds on Publication 103 (the 2007
Recommendations), Publication 124 (environment) and Publication 126 (radon and thoron).
For the purpose of management of NORM as an existing exposure situation, previous advice

7

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265

may be considered superseded. The focus is upon industrial processes such as mining andmineral extraction, or other industrial activities that may lead to exposures to NORM ofgeological origin, which have been identified as requiring consideration of radiologicalprotection. The term ‘industrial’ also includes small-size business activities. In many cases,
the input to the process does not have elevated levels of NORM (e.g. fossil fuels); however,the subsequent industrial processes generate higher concentration of radionuclides in the
products, by-products, discharge, residue or waste. The industrial processes may also increase
the exposure of workers and/or members of the public and/or lead to discharges ofradioactive substances to the environment. More details about activities that may involve
NORM exposure are given in chapter 2 and Appendix 1.
(13) Some mining facilities, however, have been established for the expressed purpose of
extracting materials such as uranium and thorium from ore to be used for their radioactive,
fissile or fertile properties. These industries are considered as planned exposure situations
under the current system of radiological protection as outlined by the Commission in ICRP,
2007 and are not the subject of this publication.
(14) One contributor to NORM exposures is usually radon (222Rn) gas (from the decay of
238U) and, to a lesser extent, thoron (220Rn) gas (from the decay of 232Th). ICRP recently
provided information on lung cancer risk from radon and thoron by reviewing
epidemiological studies (ICRP, 2010), formulated recommendations for the protection ofworkers and public against them (ICRP, 2014b) and provided new dose coefficients for radon(ICRP 2017). In Publication 126 (ICRP, 2014b), the Commission recommends an integrated
approach for controlling radon exposure, relying as far as possible on the management ofbuildings or locations in which radon exposure occurs, whatever the use of the building. Thisapproach is valid for radon and thoron arising from different sources in the workplace (e.g.
from the ground, building materials and from minerals containing NORM). Thus, radon andthoron exposures in industries involving NORM should be managed in accordance with theapproach of Publication 126 and will not be considered explicitly in this publication.
(15) Due to the long-standing history of many industries involving NORM, sites havebeen identified as contaminated by NORM residues and wastes from past activities (legacy
sites). In 2014, ICRP established a Task Group to develop a report on how to apply theCommission’s recommendations to exposures resulting from contaminated sites from pastindustrial activities, so this topic will not be fully addressed here.
(16) The 2007 Recommendations (ICRP, 2007a) extended the system of radiologicalprotection to address protection of the environment, including flora and fauna, more
explicitly. Later, in Publication 124 (ICRP, 2014a), the Commission describes its frameworkfor protection of the environment, through the introduction of Reference Animals and Plants
and how it should be applied within the system of radiological protection. Consistent with theapproach established by the 2007 Recommendations (ICRP, 2007a), this Publication will
specifically address the protection of the environment against NORM exposure.
(17) The ethical underpinnings of the system of radiological protection rely on four core
ethical values as described in the Publication 138 (ICRP, 2018): beneficence/nonmaleficence, prudence, justice and dignity. There are important ethical issues to be integrated
in the protection strategy against NORM exposure. Applying the system of protection is apermanent quest for decisions that do more good than harm (beneficence/non-maleficence),that avoid unnecessary risk (prudence), that establish a fair distribution of exposures (justice)and treat people with respect (dignity).
(18) While ionising radiation may be a consideration in terms of the protection of people
and the environment from NORM, it is generally neither the only hazard nor the mostdominant hazard. Indeed, many NORM residue and waste may contain toxic non-radiological
8

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
266
267
268
269
270

constituents that may be harmful to human health and/or the environment (e.g. heavy metals).
The present Publication will not provide guidance on the management of these constituents,
which may have to be controlled by environmental regulation. However, the Commission
recommends the use of an integrated approach for the management of radiation and otherhazards.

271

1.3. Structure of this publication

272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281

(19) Chapter 2 presents the characteristics of NORM exposures, an overview of theindustries and practices where NORM exposure can occur, and elements related to the
NORM cycle. Chapter 3 describes the Commission’s system of radiological protection
applied to NORM exposure, including the type of exposure situation, the category of
exposure concerned and the basic principles to be applied. Chapter 4 provides guidance on
the implementation of the system of radiological protection using an integrated and gradedapproach for the various exposed workers, public and the environment. Conclusions areprovided in chapter 5. Appendix 1 completes Chapter 2 with more details about activities that
may involve NORM exposure.

9DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
282

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPOSURE FROM NORM

283

2.1. Ubiquity and variability

284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327

(20) Radionuclides from natural origin are ubiquitous and are present in almost allmaterials on Earth. They are in general not of radiological concern. Some human activities,
however, have the potential to enhance radiation exposures from these materials.
(21) Many organisations have produced comprehensive reviews of industries that may
cause NORM-related radiation exposure of workers, the public and the environment(UNSCEAR 1982, 2008; EC, 1999a; IAEA, 2006; EURATOM, 2013). Examples are given
below. Further, previous industrial sites could have involved NORM, and these legacy sites
may require attention. Details on these work activities are provided in Appendix 1.
1. Extraction of rare earth elements.
2. Production and use of metallic thorium and its compounds (i.e. for their metallic not
fissile radioactive properties).
3. Mining and processing of ores (other than uranium or thorium for the nuclear fuel cycle).
4. Oil and gas recovery process.
5. Manufacture of titanium dioxide pigments.
6. The phosphate processing industry.
7. The zircon and zirconia industries.
8. Production of metal (tin, copper, iron, steel, aluminium, niobium/tantalum, bismuth,etc.).
9. Combustion of fossil fuel (mainly coal).
10. Water treatment.
11. Geothermal energy production.
12. Cement production, maintenance of clinker ovens.
13. Building materials (including building materials manufactured from residues or by
products).
(22) Typical industries involving NORM process a wide range of raw materials withdifferent levels of activity concentrations, producing a variety of products, by-products,
discharges, residues and wastes. These industries may or may not be of radiological concern
depending on the activity concentrations in the raw materials handled, the processes adopted,
the uses of final products, the reuse and recycling of residues and the disposal of wastes.
(23) The range of process broadly leads to three scenarios for radiation exposure: From large quantities of material as an ore or a stockpile of raw material; From small quantities of material with concentrated radionuclides such as mineral
concentrates, scales and sludge;
 From material that has been volatilised in high-temperature processes, like slags,
precipitator dust and furnace fume.
(24) Work with NORM can give rise to external and internal radiation exposures.
External exposures can arise from extended exposures to low (gamma) dose rates, fromshorter exposures to high (gamma and sometimes beta) dose rates from performing
maintenance on internals of equipment, slags, scales and sludges, or a combination of these.
The potential for internal exposure is governed mostly by the way NORM occurs in theworkplace, and the personal protective equipment worn by workers. Radon may be an
important source of exposure in indoor or underground atmosphere (as mentioned above,
radon exposure should be dealt with in accordance with Publication 126 (ICRP, 2014b)). In
large-scale mining and milling operations, airborne dust is a common industrial hazard, and
10

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346

internal exposures from inhalation of NORM can be significant, especially where higher
activity concentrations are present (e.g. above tens of Bq g-1). In contrast, internal exposuresfrom ingestion of NORM, including in water, are usually low (EC, 1999a). However, there
can be considerable differences depending on workplace conditions, the radionuclides
involved and the physical and chemical matrices in which the radionuclides are incorporated(UNSCEAR, 2016).
(25) Very large numbers of workers in the world may be exposed to NORM, andalthough the data are more limited than those for occupational exposures to man-madesources, the worldwide level of exposure for workers exposed to natural sources of radiation
has been estimated to 30,000 man.Sv annually (around 13 million workers) (UNSCEAR,
2008). Until implementation of the International Basic Safety Standards for protection
against ionising radiation in 1996 (IAEA, 1996) most countries had not been particularly
concerned with assessing occupational exposure to natural sources of radiation. Table 2.1(adapted from IAEA (2006)) gives recent ranges of exposures to workers in some industries
involving NORM. In the majority of workplaces, both the average and the maximum
assessed doses received by workers are below a few mSv per year but higher doses – in somecases as high as few tens of mSv – may occur in certain situations and in specific workplaces(around 100 mSv y-1 in very few underground mines).

11

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
347
348
349

Table 2.1. Examples of dose assessments for workers (external and internal from dust,
excluding exposure to radon)
Activities

Radionuclides withhighest activity
concentration

232Th (in feedstock andProcessing of thorium
concentratea
product)
Production of thorium
compoundsb
238U and 232 Th series
Mining of rare earth orec
Beneficiation of rare earth orec
(feedstock)
232Th series
Handling of monazite
228Ra (residues)
Rare earth separation andpurification
Decommissioning of a rare earths 228Ra (residues)
plantd238U and 232 Th series (inMining of ore other than uranium
oregeneral)
226Ra (scale/sludge)
Oil and gas production, offshore
Oil and gas production, onshore
Oil production, cleaning ofpipesc,eTitanium dioxide pigment• 232Th (feedstock)production• 226Ra, 228Ra (scale)
238U series
Phosphate ore storage
Phosphate fertiliser production• 238U (feedstock andproduct)• 226Ra (residues)
Zircon production• 238U series (feedstock)
Bastnäsite (zirconia) production• 210Po (in dust
Manufacture and use of zircon
precipitator)
Manufacture and use of refractory • 238U (in fused
ceramics
zirconia/product)
Manufacture of zircon/zirconia
ceramics
Processing of Sn, Al, Ti and Nb• 232Th (feedstock,ores
product and slag)• 228Ra (residue)
226Ra (slag)
Copper smelting
210Po, 210Pb (precipitator
Recycling of metal scrap
dust)
Coal mining• 238U• 226Ra, 228Ra (for coalwith high Ra inflow
water)
210
Combustion of coal
Po (scale)
Combustion of coal
Combustion of coal
226
Drinking water treatment
Ra (sludge)

Manufacture of mineralinsulationg

350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359

a
b

c
d
e
f
g

n.a

Annual effective dose (mS y-1)
Minimum

Mean

3.0

Maximum

Distribution

7.8
82

67% <10.24 – 1
0.28 – 0.61
0.3
0.3
0.2

7.2

8.94

1.3

3

5

0.6

0.5
0.05
3

80% <1

0.27
0.28
0.5

0.4
0.4
2.3
1.5

0
~0.01

87% <198% <1· · ·· · ·· · ·· · · · · · · ·Negligible· · · · · · · ·· · ·· · ·· · ·3.2f

069% <1<1·· · · · ·· · ·· · · · · · · ·Negligible· · · · · · · ·· · ·· · ·· · ·
2.75

0

0.4
<1
0.13
<1

0.00110.0173

Doses include contributions from inhalation of thoron.
Doses >1 mSv y-1, mainly due to dust inhalation, were identified in two of the six workplaces investigated. The assessment is being
repeated after the implementation of dose reduction measures (equipping workers with respiratory protection, cleaning the workplaces
periodically and installing air filtration).
Dose from external exposure only.
Doses received over a 9-month decommissioning period.
Doses received over a 5-month refurbishment period.
The maximum dose was 6 mSv prior to 2008.
The minerals were coal, bauxite, basalt and cement.

12

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376

(26) In terms of public exposure, direct external exposures (i.e. from NORM on the site)
are usually negligible, although there are exceptions to this. For some specific industry
involving NORM sites, it has been reported that some representative individuals in close
proximity to the plant can receive annual doses in the millisievert range (UNSCEAR, 2008).
In general, public doses from NORM mainly arise from radionuclides released to air andwater as routine discharges, and the use of NORM-containing by-products in commodities
such as building materials. A complete review is made difficult by the diversity of industries
involved, the local circumstances associated with the exposures, and the overall lack of sitespecific radiological assessments. Table 2.2 presents some data related to public exposuresfrom NORM (adapted from IAEA (2010)). These estimates are subject to uncertainties andare often conservative. In Table 2.2 the annual effective dose from NORM to public is
estimated to be far below 1 mSv per year, except in the situation of wide use ofphosphogypsum in building material.
Table 2.2. Examples of dose assessments for members of the public (excluding exposure toradon).
Activities

Mining of rare earth ore
Beneficiation of rare earth ore
Use of slag from rare earths and steel
production in house bricks
Production of Th welding rods
Mining of ore other than uranium ore
Large mineral residue deposit, 1 Bq g-1
238
U and/or 232Th
Oil and gas production
Elemental phosphorus production
Use of dicalcium phosphate animal feed
Use of phosphogypsum for agriculture
Use of phosphogypsum (PG) for
construction of houses:
Walls and ceilings, PG panels,
Walls, ceilings and floor, hollow
PG panels
Walls, ceilings and floor, solid PG
panelsWalls, PG plasterboard lining
Walls, PG in bricks and cement
Manufacture of zircon/zirconia ceramics
Steel production
Use of metal recycling slag for road
construction
Combustion of coal
Drinking water treatment
Disposal of water treatment residue in
landfill
Effluent water treatment, former U mine
Use of common building materials forhouse construction

Radionuclides withhighest activity
concentration
232Th (contaminated soil)
232Th (contaminated soil)
226Ra, 232Th (bricks)

N.A.
232Th and 238 U series

N.A.
210Po, 210Pb (in chicken)
226Ra (in fertiliser)

Annual effective dose (mSv)

0.044
0.043
~0.2
Negligible
Specified only as <1
0.05–0.26
Specified only as <1
<0.04
<0.02
Negligible

226Ra (in the building material)

0.02 – 0.2
0.46
4.5

232Th, 228Ra (in dust/gaseous

effluent)
223Ra (slag)

N.A.
N.A.
226Ra (sludge)

N.A.
N.A.

0.15 (India) or insignificant(Australia)≤1.4
Negligible<0.01
Specified only as <1
Negligible
Negligible
0.01
Specified only as <1<0.3 – 1

377

13

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
378
379
380
381
382
383
384

(27) Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a) introduced an approach for developing a framework
to demonstrate radiological protection of the environment. However, there are as yet few
examples of the assessment of the impact of NORM, outside of uranium mining activities (orsimilar) on the environment. Each case should be evaluated on an individual basis taking all
the present hazards, all concerned species, main environmental conditions and othercharacteristics into the consideration.

385

2.2. The NORM cycle

386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404

(28) Several stages of production involving NORM can be identified – some industries
may involve almost all these stages, others may involve only some of them:
1. Mineral extraction,
2. Mineral processing,
3. Fabrication of products,
4. Use of products and by-products,
5. Re-use and recycling of residues,
6. Management of wastes, and
7. Dismantling or remediation and rehabilitation.
(29) The presence of NORM with elevated radionuclide concentrations could be an issue
at any stage and may lead to significant radiological exposures of workers and the public andcontamination of the environment if not adequately controlled.
(30) By-products and residues from a one industry involving NORM can be used as
feedstock by other industry involving NORM and/or in common practices (e.g. building
materials). In that sense, after being brought to surface (or else introduced into the industrial
sector by another means), NORM enters a cycle, which is possibly endless (i.e. NORM canbe moved and/or reprocessed from place to place), and enhanced exposures due to NORM
may occur during all stages of the cycle.

14

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
405
406
407

3. THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S SYSTEM OF
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION TO NORM

408

3.1. Types of exposure situations and categories of exposure409

3.1.1. Types of exposure situations

410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448

(31) The Commission defines an exposure situation as a network of events and situations
that begins with a natural or artificial radiation source, the transfer of the radiation orradioactive materials through various pathways, and the resulting exposure of individuals or
the environment (ICRP, 2007a, Para. 169). Protection can be achieved by taking action at thesource, or at any point in the exposure pathways of the exposed individuals.
(32) According to Para. 176 of Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a), the Commission intends
its Recommendations to be applied to all sources in the following three types of exposure
situations, which address all conceivable circumstances: Existing exposure situations are exposure situations resulting from a source that alreadyexists, with no intention to use the source for its radioactive properties, before a decision
to control the resulting exposure is taken. Decisions on the need to control the exposure
may be necessary but not urgent. Characterisation of exposures is a prerequisite for theircontrol; Planned exposure situations are situations resulting from the deliberate introduction andoperation of sources, used for their radioactive properties. For this type of situation, theuse of the source is understood, and as such the exposures can be anticipated andcontrolled from the beginning; and Emergency exposure situations are situations resulting from a loss of control of a source,
or from intentional misuse of a source, which requires urgent and timely actions in order
to avoid or mitigate exposure.
(33) The Commission considers human and environmental exposures resulting fromindustries involving NORM as existing exposure situations. The source is not deliberately
introduced in the industrial process for its radioactive properties; it already exists in material
used in the process or industry, and any protection decisions to control the exposure are madein that context. The process in which NORM in raw materials is concentrated, with changesof chemical-physical form resulting in production of radioactive release, residue and waste, is
not for the purpose of introducing a new radioactive source; it is incidental even though it has
to be managed. However, the Commission considers that when NORM is processed for its
radioactive, fissile or fertile properties, it is a planned exposure situation.
(34) The philosophy of Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a) compared to Publication 60(ICRP, 1991) is to recommend a consistent approach for the management of all types of
exposure situations. This approach is based on the application of the principle of optimisation
using appropriate dose criteria. In existing exposure situations, because the source alreadyexists when decisions on control are taken, the principle of application of dose limits is, apriori, not relevant. The relevant dose criteria is the reference level, and time may be needed
to fully implement the protection strategy. For the protection of non-human species, the useof environmental reference levels based on Derived Consideration Reference Levels is also
recommended (ICRP, 20014a). Whatever the type of exposure situation, however, the aim isto achieve a standard of protection that is proportionate to the level of risk.

15

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467

(35) A graded approach, commensurate to the level of the risk as well as otherconsiderations such as economic and societal, is appropriate and particularly relevant forindustries involving NORM due to economic importance of industries, large volumes ofresidues and wastes and limited options for management, moderate level of doses, andpotentially high cost of regulation in relation to reduction in exposure. Industries involving
NORM are generally situations where multiple hazards and pollutants are present. The
radiological risk may not be the dominant hazard, and consequently, there has often been noor only a limited radiological protection awareness. In such a context, the radiologicalprotection system is not necessarily the driving force in safety. The graded approach should
first take account of the existing knowledge and experience of these industries in the
management of industrial hazards and then pragmatically integrate any additional measuresnecessary for the purposes of radiological protection.
(36) The doses resulting from the process in which NORM is concentrated are expected
to remain relatively low whatever the circumstances. In the same way, the imaginable
scenarios of loss of control of the radioactive material in industries involving NORM result ina limited impact in terms of doses and subsequent sanitary effects such as tissue reaction or
immediate danger for life. Consequently, industries involving NORM present no realprospect of a radiological emergency, and thus are not likely to give rise to an emergency
exposure situation, but releases and discharges may result in environmental damage.

468

3.1.2. Categories of exposure

469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494

(37) The Commission distinguishes between three categories of exposure: occupational,
public and medical exposures. Occupational exposure is radiation exposure of workers
incurred as a result of their work. However, because of the ubiquity of radiation, theCommission traditionally limits the definition of ‘occupational exposures’ to radiation
exposures incurred at work as a result of situations that can reasonably be regarded as being
the responsibility of the operating management. Medical exposure is the exposure of patientsin the course of medical diagnosis and treatment. Public exposure encompasses all exposuresother than occupational exposures and medical exposures of patients.
(38) Industries involving NORM can give rise to both occupational and public exposure,but not to medical exposure.
(39) In most cases the exposure of workers in industries involving NORM is adventitious
because the presence of NORM in the material processed is a natural fact, without intentional
addition for its radioactive purpose, and the workers are often not considered occupationally
exposed. As indicated in Publication 126, referring to Publication 65 (ICRP, 2014b, Para.
59), workers who are not regarded as being occupationally exposed to radiation are usuallytreated in the same way as members of the public. Exposure of workers who are notconsidered occupationally exposed should anyhow be considered. In such case, it is the
responsibility of the operating management to integrate the radiation risk among the others
hazards and to address all the hazards in accordance with the agreed standards on health andsafety at work.
(40) As described in section 4.1, a graded approach is recommended for the protection ofworkers in industries involving NORM, based on the selection of the reference level as wellas the selection and the implementation of reasonable protective actions. This approachshould also take into account, as explained in the previous sub-section, the integration ofradiological protection in the procedures for the control of other hazards in a more global andsynergistic way of hazard management.

16

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507

(41) In rare cases, the level of dose or the application of special working procedures isneeded for radiological protection purposes., In these cases, the measures recommended for
occupationally exposed workers would apply (ICRP, 1997). The Commission’s
recommendations should not be interpreted as requiring all elements of a protection program
irrespective of the circumstances. The approach should be graded, based on the hazards
present.
(42) Public exposure is addressed through the control of NORM discharge, waste, residue(including their recycling and reuse) and possible legacy sites, as explained in section 4.2.
(43) Industries involving NORM generate environmental exposure through extraction,transportation, storage, processing, effluents, discharges and also from accidental releases. As
indicated in section 4.3, environmental exposure is dealt with on the basis of common
environmental standards, starting with an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
considering the presence of NORM.

508

3.2. Justification of protection strategies

509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540

(44) The principle of justification is one of the two fundamental source-related principles
that apply to all exposure situations. The recommendation in Para. 203 of Publication 103(ICRP, 2007a) requires, through the principle of justification, that any decision that alters theradiation exposure situation should do more good than harm. The Commission goes on toemphasise that for existing exposure situations, the justification principle is applied in
making the decision as to whether to take action to reduce exposure and avert further
additional exposures. Any decision will always have some disadvantages and should bejustified in the sense that it should do more good than harm. In these circumstances, as statedin Para. 207 of Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a), the principle of justification is primarily
applied in industries involving NORM when making the decision as to whether or not to
implement a protection strategy for radiation exposures.
(45) As such, the justification falls under the ethical values of beneficence, which means
promoting or doing good, and non-maleficence, which means avoiding causation of harm
(ICRP, 2018), in order to reach the overall goal of societies to contribute to the well-being ofindividuals and the quality of the living together with the preservation of biodiversity andsustainable development.
(46) As explained in Para. 208 of Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007a), the responsibility for
judging the justification usually falls on governments or other national authorities to ensurethat an overall benefit results, in the broadest sense, to society and thus not necessarily toeach individual. However, input to the justification decision may include many aspects that
could be informed by the industry involving NORM, workers, the public and organisations
other than the government or national authority. As such, justification decisions could benefit
from a stakeholder involvement process. In this context, radiological protection
considerations will serve as one input to the broader decision-making process.
(47) The need for a protection strategy controlling exposure from NORM is better
understood after radiological characterisation and taking into account health, economic,
societal and ethical considerations. Since many industries involving NORM already exist, theCommission recommends the establishment at national level of a list of industries involving
NORM for which a radiological risk assessment should be undertaken in order to determine
if a protection strategy is justified. The level of control may then be determined through theimplementation of the optimisation principle. If an ongoing industrial process involving
NORM, not previously identified on a national list, appears to be of concern, the justification

17

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549

of a protection strategy may be addressed on a case by case basis with the involvement of therelevant stakeholders.
(48) For industries involving NORM in the national list, when a new process using
NORM is to be implemented, the principle of justification should be applied in the same way
as for on-going processes, i.e. primarily when making the decision as to whether or not to
implement a protection strategy for radiation exposures. Industrial processes will usually
produce such significant economic and social benefits, and the radiological risks involved isunlikely to result in a decision that the NORM process, as a whole, would need to beconsidered unjustified. Exceptions can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

550

3.3. Optimisation of protection

551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585

(49) When a decision has been taken to implement a protection strategy, then theprinciple of optimisation of protection becomes the driving principle to select the mosteffective actions for protecting the exposed public, workers and the environment. It is definedby the Commission as the process to keep the magnitude of individual doses, the number ofpeople exposed, and the likelihood of incurring exposures, as low as reasonably achievable(ALARA), guided by appropriate individual dose criteria, taking into account economic andsocietal factors. This means that the level of protection should be the best under theprevailing circumstances, adopting a prudent and reasonable attitude (see ICRP (2018)).
(50) To avoid serious inequity in the individual dose distribution, in line with the ethicalvalue of justice (ICRP, 2018), the Commission recommends using individual dose criteria in
the optimisation process (ICRP, 2007a, Para. 232). In addition to the reduction of themagnitude of individual exposures, a reduction of the number of exposed individuals should
also be considered. The collective effective dose has been and remains a key parameter for
optimisation of protection for workers, in comparing the exposures predicted from different
options for protection strategies.
(51) The optimisation process should consider protection of the environment. The aim is
to avoid deleterious effects on non-human species. Such approach should be commensuratewith the overall level of risk and compatible with common standards of environmental
protection, notably the optimisation of discharges in the environment. As is the case forhuman exposure, NORM processes may pose environmental risks from other constituents,
and the radiological aspects have to be taken in an all hazard approach. In practice, theradiological impact should be included in the environmental impact assessment andmonitored as necessary. The approach already developed by the Commission (ICRP, 2008,2014a), through a set of Reference Animals and Plants and numerical values for DCRLs isuseful guidance when assessing possible deleterious radiation effects on non-human species,
their diversity, communities and ecosystems in general. The results contribute to decisions on
the most appropriate option for controlling the source.
(52) In case of industries involving NORM, the optimisation process is implemented ingenerally the same way as for other industries. However, because of the prevailingcircumstances and notably since in some circumstances the source cannot be controlled in theway it is for other sources, the options to reduce doses may be more limited and/or may
require different resources. Such challenges suggest the need for flexibility andreasonableness in the implementation of the optimisation process.
(53) The involvement of relevant stakeholders early in the optimisation process willcontribute to the transparency of the process and increase confidence in the outcome.

18

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
586

3.3.1. Dose criteria

587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633

(54) The Commission recommends the use of reference levels as dose criteria in existing
exposure situations. The reference level represents the value of dose used to guide and drive
the optimisation process. The selection of the reference level should consider the actual
individual dose distribution, with the objective of identifying those exposures that warrant
specific attention. Reference levels are guides for selecting amongst protective options in the
optimisation process in order to maintain individual doses as low as reasonably achievabletaking into account economic and societal factors, and thus prevent and reduce inequities inthe dose distribution. Reference levels are also benchmarks against which the results ofprotective actions can be judged to determine if protection is reasonably optimised andeffective.
(55) For existing exposure situations, the Commission recommends setting reference
levels typically within the 1 to 20 mSv per year band as presented in Table 5 of Publication
103 (ICRP, 2007a), and with the possibility that the reference level could be lower than 1
mSv per year. The 1 to 20 mSv per year band presupposes that the sources or the pathways
can generally be controlled, and individuals receive direct benefits from the activities
associated with the exposure situation, but not necessarily from the exposure itself. However,the selection of the reference level for a particular exposure situation should be made based
upon the characteristics of the circumstances (ICRP, 2007a, Para. 234), considering theindividual dose distribution, with the objective to identify those exposures that warrant
specific attention and meaningfully contribute to the optimisation process. Industries
involving NORM generally give rise to low levels of individual exposure and the appropriate
reference level would in most cases be less than a few mSv per year. The selected reference
level should be meaningful for protection purposes, not a generic value which would not help
to identify individuals for whom some further consideration might be needed. Thus,
according to the characteristics of the exposure situation, notably the actual and potential
exposure pathways, the individual dose distribution and the prospect for optimisation, an
appropriate reference level can be selected, either below a few mSv per year or above a few
mSv if necessary, but very rarely will a reference level exceeding 10 mSv per year benecessary.
(56) Chapter 4 contains specific bands of reference levels that are recommended for theprotection of NORM workers and the public, respectively. They are consistent with theapproach recommended in Publication 103.
(57) The principle of individual dose limits applies only in planned exposure situations(ICRP, 2007a, Para. 203). In the case for NORM exposure, following characterisation of thesituation, and optimisation of protection with reference levels, the protection program becomes
established, with controls that are effective. The magnitude of exposures will often be
relatively low, reflecting the optimisation of protection with reference levels.
(58) The Commission recognises that some authorities have already specified theapplication of dose limits for some industries involving NORM. Such use is understandable,
as a limit is frequently used as one regulatory mechanism to judge the acceptability of aradiation control program. Such a use is not unacceptable in circumstances when the source iswell characterised, and the control programs have been established. However, specifying alimit for regulatory purposes is not meant to imply that the situation has been, or needs to be,transformed into a planned exposure situation. In the vast majority of industries involving
NORM, the application of ‘limits’ expressed in terms of dose provides no real additional
protection for workers, and may entail administrative burdens that are not in keeping withefficient and effective use of resources.
19

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
634

3.3.2. The optimisation process

635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663

(59) Optimisation of protection of the human health and the environment in existing
exposure situations is implemented through a process that involves (a) the assessment of the
exposure situation; (b) identification of the possible protective options to maintain or reduce
the exposure to as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic and societal
factors; (c) the selection and implementation of the most appropriate protective options under
the prevailing circumstances; and (d) the regular review of the exposure situation to evaluate
if there is a need for corrective actions, or if new opportunities for improving protection haveemerged.
(60) In this iterative process, the Commission considers that the search for equity in the
distribution of individual exposures is an important aspect (ICRP, 2006). It should be noted
that, in industries involving NORM, the distribution of individual doses for both workers andmembers of the public may be very large. The protection efforts should focus individuals on
the higher dose tail of the distributions, i.e. on the most exposed individuals, so as todetermine if efforts are reasonable to reduce their exposures, while simultaneously trying toreasonably reduce the exposure of the whole exposed population.
(61) The decision making for control of industries involving NORM should be open andtransparent. Stakeholders should be involved as necessary, including the workers, communityand others as appropriate. Their concerns and ideas should be listened to and taken into
account. A transparent system for decision making will allow for controversial issues to beproperly addressed and resolved, although not necessarily with full agreement from allparties.
(62) The inclusion of natural or man-made radiation highlights the need to foster thedevelopment of an appropriate radiological protection culture within the organisation andcommunity, enabling each individual to make well-informed choices and behave wisely insituations involving potential or actual exposure to ionising radiation (ICRP, 2006). It is amatter closely tied to the ethical concept of dignity (ICRP, 2018).
(63) Detailed advice of the Commission on how to apply the optimisation principle inpractice has been provided earlier (ICRP, 1983, 1990, 1991, 2006), and remains valid.

20

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
664
665

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM OF RADIOLOGICALPROTECTION TO INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES INVOLVING NORM

666

4.1. Protection of workers

667

4.1.1. General considerations

668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708

(65) Typical industries involving NORM process a wide range of raw materials andactivity concentrations, and radiation exposure is adventitious, as the processes are not in any
way intended to take advantage of the radioactive materials. Depending upon thecircumstances, it may not be necessary to consider controls directly applicable to a particular
individual in order to properly control exposures. This does not mean that protection is notwarranted, but that the control is exercised on the workplace and the conditions of work
rather than on the worker her/himself. It is not easy to define criteria applicable in all
situations. Thus, a graded approach for the protection of workers is recommended.
(66) Three main exposure scenarios have been identified: Exposure to large quantities of material as an ore or a stockpile of raw material; Exposure to small quantities of material with concentrated radionuclides such as mineral
concentrates, scales and sludge;
 Exposure to material that has been volatilised in high temperature processes, like slag,
precipitator dust and furnace fume.
(67) The main exposure pathways for work with NORM are:
 External exposure (mostly due to gamma radiation, but occasionally beta radiation
exposure to the lens of the eye and to the skin may also need to be considered); Internal exposure from inhalation dust and to a much lesser extent ingestion ofradioactive dust, as well as exposures due to radon gas and its progeny, which can occur
above ground or underground (e.g., the build-up of radon gas in undergroundworkplaces) and sometimes thoron emanating from NORM. In practice, radon emanatingfrom such materials is often indistinguishable from that already present (e.g. from theground).
(68) The Commission considers that radon and thoron in the workplace, irrespective of
the source, should be managed as a single source, i.e. as described in Publication 126. That
Publication recommends an integrated approach for protection against radon exposure in allbuildings, whatever their purpose and the status of their occupants. The strategy of protection
in buildings, implemented through a national action plan, should be based on application of
the optimisation principle using a reference level translated for practical reasons toconcentrations in air, to facilitate implementation. The Commission recommends thatnational authorities to set a derived reference level that is as low as reasonably achievable in
the range of 100 to 300 Bq m-3 taking the prevailing economic and societal circumstances
into account. The corresponding effective dose depends on a number of factors such as
breathing rates (see ICRP (2017)). As described in Publication 126, if Radon mitigation
actions cannot reduce levels to less than the reference level, the exposure will need to beconsidered as part of the occupational exposure.
(69) It is important to note that workers in industries involving NORM are exposed toradiation and also to other hazards. The radiological risk is often not the dominant hazard,
and may historically not even have been a consideration. In such a context, there is often alack of radiological protection awareness or a culture supporting such protection. However,such industries do have experience and expertise in the management of occupational health21

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726

and safety, and there is an opportunity to build a radiological protection culture in an
integrated fashion. In many cases, actions to reduce workplaces hazards such as airborne
dust, will also restrict radiation exposures, and an integrated approach to worker protection isrecommended.
(70) Protection of workers in industries involving NORM should be based on a gradedapproach to control radiation exposures, according to the annual effective dose (due to theactivities involving NORM) that is likely to be received and the scope for dose reduction that
may be necessary.
(71) In practice, a graded approach can be realised through the selection of suitable dosereference levels, the selection of the requisites, i.e. appropriate protective actions, and theintegrated implementation of these requisites. The practical implementation of this approach
will also help to determine whether or not the workers should be considered as
occupationally exposed to radiation.
(72) This approach can also serve as the basis for creating a common understanding
between regulatory authorities and other stakeholders such as operators, workers and theirrepresentatives, as well as health, safety and environmental professionals, of the radiologicalaspects of the various processes involved and the ways in which these aspects can beaddressed reasonably and effectively.

727

4.1.2. Selection of the dose reference level for workers

728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743

(73) Since the industries involving NORM are so diverse, there is no unique numericalvalue which is appropriate as a reference level for all of them. According to thecharacteristics of the exposure situation, notably the actual and potential exposure pathways,
the individual doses distribution and the prospect for optimisation, the appropriate reference
level can be selected:
 Below a few mSv per year for most cases, and Above a few mSv, but very rarely exceeding 10 mSv per year, when necessary becauseof the circumstances involved.
(74) Considering the current information about the dose distribution of doses of workers
in many industries involving NORM, the selection of a reference level above 10 mSv per
year would not be necessary in terms of radiological protection.
(75) As indicated above, these doses exclude exposures from radon or thoron.
(76) In most situations, the residual doses are not expected to exceed the reference level,
particularly after the effective implementation of protective measures. The reference levelremains useful to allow judgement on the appropriate functioning of the program, and toindicate if modifications of the program are needed.

744

4.1.3. Selection and implementation of requisites

745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753

(77) When considering measures to optimise exposures to NORM workers, the starting
point should always be the existing industrial safety and hygiene controls, i.e. for nonradiological hazards in the workplace. Experience shows that a well-managed, safety-focused
workplace will already have done much to reduce radiation exposures from NORM. Where
additional radiological protection controls are considered necessary, as far as practicablethese should be integrated into the wider safety strategy.
(78) The strategy for protection of workers as defined in Conventions from theInternational Labour Organisation (Convention 167, Convention 176), comprises three main
steps:

22

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802

(a) Eliminate the risk, for example by replacing hazardous substances by harmless or lesshazardous substances wherever possible;(b) Minimise the risk, for example by technical measures applied to the plant, machinery,equipment or process;(c) In so far as the risk remains, undertake other effective measures related to the workers
themselves, such as the use of personal protective equipment.
(79) The same scheme is relevant for the protection of workers in industries involving
NORM. Control of the workplace and the conditions of work are to eliminate or minimise therisk, while the control of individuals enters when adequate protection has not already beenachieved. Moving from controls of the workplace to individual controls needs to be carefully
considered as these controls are costly, and the preference would be to have sufficient controls
for the workplace so that individual controls are not needed. The requisites related to theworkplace and the conditions of work, are described below.
(80) Characterisation of the situation: this characterisation – determining who is
exposed, when, where and how – is an important starting point for the protection of workers.
It includes the characterisation of the source, with the aim of identifying the distribution of
NORM radionuclides and their activity concentrations throughout the industrial process,including mode of exposure, chemical and physical characteristics of particulates, NORM
distribution and activity concentrations at all stages of the industrial process. Feed materials,
intermediates, residues and wastes (including contamination of the plant), and discharges tothe environment should be considered.
(81) Characterising the source will help identify the main exposure pathways to workers,
the public and the environment. In terms of exposure to workers, the next step is tocharacterise exposed groups or individuals and make an initial assessment of the annual doses(effective doses arising from external exposure and internal exposure through inhalation)
received from the work with NORM.
(82) The characterisation of the exposure situation may, of course, vary in detailaccording to the prevailing circumstances involved. In practice, external gamma radiation andinternal exposures from radioactive dust inhalation are the two exposure pathways of interest(plus radon which is addressed separately). When considering the likely annual radiation
exposure of workers in different industries involving NORM, it is important that these arebased on realistic estimates, i.e. taking into account actual external radiation and airborne
contamination levels in the workplace and actual working patterns and procedures. Whenestimating radiation exposures, the effect of existing occupational health and safety (OHS)
provisions should be taken into account (e.g. industrial hygiene, industrial safety, workplace
controls on airborne dust).
(83) It is important that this characterisation stage is fully documented, so as to provide asound basis for any future decision-making.
(84) The characterisation will form the basis for the justification of the protection
strategy, notably the need for specific requisites for radiological protection purposes, as well
as for the scaling of the optimisation process.
(85) The initial characterisation should be subject to periodic review. The detail andfrequency of this periodic review should be commensurate with the level of risk. Whenfeedstocks, ores, production practices or other factors that can affect dose are expected tochange significantly, a new characterisation should be undertaken.
(86) Obtaining expert radiological protection advice: such expertise is normally required
from the beginning, i.e. to assist with the characterisation of the exposure situation.
Typically, industries involving NORM have operated for many years before the issue ofnatural radioactivity has been addressed. As a result, there is often a complete lack of
23

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850

knowledge about radioactivity and radiological protection. Consequently, the first step should
be to seek expert advice on this issue, even where industries involving NORM already havetheir own technical support in a wide range of other areas. Such specific expertise can beprovided either internally or by external consultants. Such radiological protection expertiseshould be sought by both operating management, and also by the national authorities where
no specialised expertise exists. The need for advice from a radiological protection expert may
be temporary (e.g. where it can be shown from an initial review and assessment that
exposures are very low), or may be required on an on-going basis.
(87) Initial actions to prevent or reduce the hazard: this corresponds to the first step of
the ILO approach. At the initial stage, it is useful to consider if there are any ways in which
the hazards from NORM can be either eliminated from the process, or else substantiallyreduced. Examples include the selection of alternative feed materials (i.e. with much lower
concentrations of NORM), or changes to the process designed to prevent the accidental
accumulation or concentration of radionuclides. Whilst recognising that this is likely notpractical or possible, particularly in long standing industries involving NORM, it neverthelessshould be given some consideration.
(88) Delineation of areas: the delineation of areas is a well-established element of thecontrol strategy in planned exposure situations. However, it is also part of a wider industrial
health and safety strategy, i.e. to identify areas where additional safety measures (e.g.
working procedures, ventilation requirements, use of personal protective equipment,
limitation of access) are required. To be effective, area delineation requires warning signs
and, in some cases, formal restrictions on access. The same approach is appropriate forindustries involving NORM. Worker right-to-know protocols may determine the type ofsignage needed. The concept may already be in place in some industries, as there would, forexample, be warnings and controls for dust.
(89) Engineered controls: as previously said, the characteristics of NORM are such that
scenarios involving high doses from accidental exposures do not generally exist. Thus, thetraditional engineering controls to prevent such exposures are not required. Instead, measures
to restrict chronic exposures from NORM should be considered. These start with the designand layout of the facility, and then specific measures to control dust, such as containment andventilation. Industries involving NORM such as mineral processing plants can be very dusty,
and a dust control strategy and programme should already be in place in such facilities.
Improvements to containment and ventilation systems should be considered holistically, i.e.
in terms of their overall effect on radioactive and other materials.
(90) Specific engineering measures to restrict external radiation exposures (i.e. shielding)may be required: for example, local shielding around pipes and vessels containing NORM atvery high activity concentrations may be considered. More commonly, however, protection isprovided through adjustments to working patterns and, in some cases, relocation of materials,
plant or persons (distance).
(91) Working procedures: these procedures, such as limiting time of exposure, can bevery effective in restricting both internal and external doses, even where exposures are
already low. Often, all that is required is observance of good industrial hygiene and simple
safe working procedures, supported by an appropriate amount of training (see below) andsupervision.
(92) The requisites listed above, complemented by at least a general information
programme for workers (see below), may be sufficient for the protection of workers in mostindustries involving NORM. However, they can be complemented, as necessary, by
requisites related to the individuals.

24

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899

(93) Information, instruction and training: the information and training provided toworkers should be proportionate to the radiation risk and the precautions that need to betaken. There is a basic need to share information and generally raise awareness about NORM
within the workplace. Information should in particular be provided to pregnant andbreastfeeding workers. NORM workers are key stakeholders in this process, and theprinciples of open communication and engagement should be applied at an early stage.
Where special precautions to restrict exposures to radiation are required, the relevant workers
should receive specific training to understand the nature of the radiological risks and theimportance of protective actions, and practical instructions on how to implement theseactions.
(94) Personal protective equipment (PPE): this includes protective clothing andrespiratory protective equipment (e.g. dust masks), and these are already widely used in
NORM workplaces to protect against other hazards. PPE should be selected with due
consideration of the hazards involved. The equipment should not only provide adequate
protection but also be convenient and comfortable to use. The effectiveness of any existing
PPE should be assessed before determining whether improved or additional PPE forradiological protection purposes is required. Engineered controls are the favoured option,with working procedures and, finally, protective respiratory equipment being considered only
where further engineering controls are not effective or practicable. Consideration should also
be given to the possibility of an increase in exposure caused by the additional constraints ofthe personal protective equipment.
(95) Dose assessment: an assessment of the exposure of workers is required as part of theinitial characterisation described above. It is envisaged that this will be based on workplacemeasurements and other information (e.g. about the process and working practices), rather
than individual dosimetry. In practice, although the level of dose may not be the only
criterion, where worker doses are estimated to be higher than a few mSv per year, an ongoingprogramme of dose assessment should be implemented, according to a graded approach.
Where doses are above a few mSv per year, it is expected that they will be estimated on thebasis of workplace measurements. Individual dose assessment, for example through the useof personal dosimeters, may be useful as a means of providing information to help optimise
exposures, but is not expected to be undertaken on a routine basis.
(96) Where doses are well above a few mSv per year, there is a need to undertake
individual dose assessments. For external radiation, this should be done with personal
dosimeters (passive or electronic). Assessment of internal exposures from dust inhalation ismuch more challenging; however, in very dusty NORM workplaces there may already be adust monitoring programme which can be adapted to also provide estimates of radiation dose.
If not, and if internal doses are high, arrangements with a suitable internal dosimetry service
will need to be considered. It should be noted, however, that such exposures are unlikely to
be considered optimised, and that suitable protective actions should be more than capable ofreducing internal exposures.
(97) Dose recording: both workplace and individual data related to the estimation andassessment of worker doses should be recorded and kept for sufficient time. The recording
may be carried out in different ways according to the situation. For instance, it could be bykeeping track of ambient exposure in a given place of work and of people who frequented it,so as to be able to assess the doses of a given worker retrospectively if necessary. It could
also be carried out by registering individual doses in the dedicated sheet in the medical recordof each concerned worker.
(98) Health surveillance: in some industries involving NORM there is already a healthsurveillance programme for non-radiological reasons. It is considered unlikely that health25

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910

surveillance specifically for radiological protection purposes will be required, except in avery few cases where annual doses well above a few mSv per year are repeatedly received. If
this is the case, then it is expected that existing provisions for the health surveillance ofworkers occupationally exposed to radiation will be used, and will be sufficient.
(99) Most of these requisites can be implemented more or less thoroughly. Workers arelikely to be considered as occupationally exposed when, despite all reasonable efforts to
reduce exposure, elevated individual doses persist and when the application of special
working procedures are needed to perform the job. In such cases, education and training,
individual radiation dose monitoring and recording, or health surveillance for radiologicalprotection purposes may all need to be implemented as described in ICRP Publication 75(ICRP, 1997).

911

4.2. Protection of the public

912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931

(100) The general approach to the protection of the public should also start with acharacterisation of the exposure situation (who is exposed, when, where and how), including
analysis of exposure pathways and dose assessments. This characterisation forms the basis
for the justification of a protection strategy. Then the optimisation process should be
implemented, including the selection of a reference level, the selection and theimplementation of the protective actions, the involvement of stakeholders in the decisionmaking process and the provision of a long-term monitoring of the situation if necessary.
(101) This process should be implemented in a reasonable way, keeping in mind theethical values of beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, justice and dignity. In more
complex situations, working with stakeholders to identify their underlying interests for eachethical value can be very useful in working towards an acceptable and sustainable solution.
(102) The reference level for the protection of the public should be selected below a few
mSv per year. In some cases of public exposure for industries involving NORM, a reference
level less than 1 mSv per year may, in fact, be the most appropriate taking into account the
distribution of doses that exists. The protection of the public should be addressed as a whole,i.e. taking into account the different pathways. In a given situation, the pathways need to beconsidered with respect to NORM discharge, waste, residue and possible legacy sites. In
practice, the most exposed individuals to each pathway belong to different groups so that thereference level can generally be applied to any given pathway. The reuse and recycling of
NORM residues may be starting point of a new NORM process.

932

4.2.1. Discharges from industries involving NORM

933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943

(103) Liquid and gaseous radioactive and/or non-radioactive effluents may be deliberately
discharged from the normal operation of industries involving NORM. Radionuclides may
also be precipitated onto particles in the stream of liquid or gaseous effluents (aerosols). In
certain cases, such as oil and gas extraction, the phosphate processing industry and the
combustion of coal, NORM discharges have been an issue for the protection of both people
and the environment. Therefore, effluents should be properly controlled taking into accountthe radiological and non-radiological impacts and, if necessary, restricted in order to protect
the public and the environment.
(104) A comprehensive site-specific control of the discharge should, from a radiologicalprotection point of view, include the following steps:(a) Radiological characterisation of discharge;

26

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965

(b) Identification of potential exposure pathways and radionuclides mobility;(c) Dose assessments and risk estimation;(d) Justification of measures to control discharge;(e) If so, selection of a reference level, and;(f) Selection and implementation of measures within a protection strategy through an
optimisation process (ALARA).
(105) The protection strategy should include preventive actions aimed at eliminating or
reducing the quantity and the concentration of discharges, as well as mitigation actions
aiming at reducing the impact of the discharge in term of public and environmental
exposures. The optimisation process and the involvement of stakeholders are case specificand depend, in practice, on the operational characteristics of the NORM facility, discharge
processes, radioactivity levels and estimated risk, the public groups involved, as well associetal and political aspects and public awareness. Optimisation in practice can be complex
due to the fact that some processes such as effluent treatment may lead to the production offurther waste in which there are increased concentrations of radionuclides, or else produce anincrease in the overall volume of waste produced.
(106) Attention should also be paid to the issue of drinking water, to the environmental
impact (see below), current and future land use in the area and to the possible presence ofseveral facilities in the same area.
(107) The use of reference levels translated into a measurable quantity (for example, interms of total activity and/or activity concentration) may be appropriate for industries
involving NORM.

966

4.2.2. Waste

967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983

(108) Waste, both liquid and solid, is material with no further planned use. Industries
involving NORM can produce wastes containing both radioactive and non-radioactive
pollutants: both should be managed consistently. Globally, industries involving NORM
produce waste ranging from small volumes of waste with high concentrations ofradionuclides to large volumes of waste with low concentrations of radionuclides.
(109) All waste should be characterised in order to determine the proper methods for
disposal. Waste treatment should be considered and performed as relevant in the optimisation
process, although concentration of wastes to high levels can pose challenges. The issue of
waste should be considered from its generation to final disposal when starting or designing a
new project (‘from cradle to grave’).
(110) The method of disposal of NORM waste should be proportionate to the type and thelevel of hazard taking into account all types of pollutants in the presence (radioactive andnon-radioactive). Depending on level of radioactivity and volume of waste, a gradedapproach should apply. Some waste could be treated as industrial or hazardous waste anddisposed of accordingly in near surface landfills. The disposal of waste with higher
concentrations of radionuclides should be consistent with the management of radioactive
waste.

984

4.2.3. Residues

985
986
987
988

(111) Residues are materials which can be recycled and re-used. They are mainly comingfrom upstream of the NORM cycle (exploration, extraction of material) and the activity
concentration in the residues may be significantly enhanced compared to the raw material.
Like waste, they should be characterised and properly stored before potential reuse. There are27

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003

economic and ecological arguments for finding a use for NORM residues. By-products andresidues of a given industry involving NORM can be used as feedstock by other industries
involving NORM, as land-fill (if there are no chemical hazards or pathways to groundwater),and/or in commodities (e.g. building materials). Using residues as feedstock may be thestarting point of a new NORM process. Recycling or re-use helps to reduce waste volumes.
However, in some cases, it could result in exposure of workers, the public and theenvironment. Residues that are stockpiled for any length of time should be properly managed
to prevent environmental contamination.
(112) The implementation of a protection strategy should be considered for reuse or
recycling of NORM residues. The assessment should take account of various elements suchas the level of exposure, the pollution of the environment, the alternatives, the future of the
products or the societal acceptance. In rare cases, based on this assessment, the new process
may not be justified and the residues may need to be treated as waste.
(113) When a protection strategy is justified, optimisation should be considered
recognising that the scope for dose reduction may be limited.

1004

4.2.4. Building materials

1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035

(114) Building materials may contain natural radionuclides originating from raw materials(e.g. extracted from quarries) or residues from industries involving NORM or a mixture ofmaterials some of which are naturally radioactive (e.g. concrete). They can cause public
exposures by direct external gamma radiation and by releasing radon into indoor air.
Occupational exposures in the manufacture and handling of building materials are usually
low but they should be managed in a graded approach as in any other industry involving
NORM.
(115) The reference level for building materials should be of the order of 1 mSv y-1, or
less, expressed as effective dose caused by external gamma radiation to members of the
public. A reference level of this order should also ensure that any radon exhalation from
226Ra in building materials is unlikely to be the cause for the reference levels set for indoor
radon concentration to be exceeded. The exhalation of thoron is not expected to be ofconcern. Radon exposures should be managed in line with Publication 126 (ICRP, 2014b)
irrespectively of its origin.
(116) Lists of building materials, raw materials and residues of concern may be found invarious publications (EURATOM, 2013; IAEA, 2015). There are also different
methodologies for screening building materials of concern and for assessing the dose causedby building materials (EC, 1999b; IAEA, 2005; EURATOM, 2013). A common screening
method is the use of an activity concentration index derived from the reference level, thevalue of which is calculated on the basis of the concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K. Where
the value of the index is less than 1, the dose level of 1 mSv per year cannot be exceeded
under any circumstances. Because of its very conservative assumptions, the index does not,however, provide information on the actual exposure caused by a building material. For
assessing the dose, more elaborate methods need to be used in order to consider the actual
concentrations and locations of a certain building material in a building (EC, 1999b;
EURATOM, 2013; IAEA, 2015).
(117) A protection strategy should be established with the aim to promote building
materials that do not exceed the reference level. The strategy may encompass measures suchas providing information on the levels of exposure caused by different building materials,
labelling of materials, suggesting the use of materials with low radioactive concentration orlimiting the use of certain materials causing significant exposures. In keeping with the ethical28

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046

value of beneficence/non-maleficence, it is important to ensure that the measures envisaged
are actually reasonable and feasible before deciding on them.
(118) Special attention should be paid to processes where residues with exceptionally highactivity concentrations are incorporated into building materials. They should not be
implemented for the purpose of intentional diluting or for bypassing more stringent
requirements on the appropriate management of such residues. This applies irrespective ofwhether the reference level for building materials might be exceeded.
(119) There may be a need to apply a similar approach for other construction materials
such as those used for foundations of houses, surfaces of yards, playgrounds, streets androads, as well as, bridges and other similar structures. Dose assessments and separate derived
activity concentration indexes may need to be considered.

1047

4.2.5. Legacy sites

1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079

(120) Industries involving NORM account for many current legacy sites with radioactive
contamination. NORM legacy sites have been identified more frequently with the risingawareness of industries involving NORM and related radiological protection issues. Thissituation shows that the dismantling of facilities when shutdown is sometime not sufficiently
considered from a radiological protection point of view. Technologies and methods alreadyexist and should be implemented in order to avoid legacy sites.
(121) The issue of legacy sites is in the scope of a future ICRP Publication in preparation,
therefore the present publication provides only a few general considerations. The assignmentof responsibility or liability for maintenance and remediation of old legacy sites may be anissue due to the elapsed time and often lost information. Sites with no known responsible
party are often called orphan sites. New legacy sites should be avoided through a proper
dismantling of the industries involving NORM and durable administrative control ifnecessary.
(122) The justification of the remediation of legacy sites is not only driven by radiologicalprotection considerations. As in active industries involving NORM, other hazards such as
heavy metals may also be present. The reference level should be in the lower range of theband 1-20 mSv y-1. The reference level is not the endpoint of the remediation. The endpointshould be an optimised level of dose below the reference level, determined on a case by casebasis taking into account the prevailing circumstances (including the situation predisturbance), the future use of the site (when it can be predicted) and the possible conditions(or restrictions) of use.
(123) The implementation of the optimisation principle is often a challenge, for example
because it is occasionally difficult to make a distinction between NORM contamination andthe natural background radioactivity. The challenge may also be due to a lack of societal
acceptance. The involvement of stakeholders in the decision process is of great importancefor the management of legacy sites.
(124) The workers involved in the remediation process may need to be specifically trained
for working with radiation. As such, they should be considered as occupationally exposed.
(125) If common workers or members of the public are participating in the remediation (intheir home or in places open to the public), relevant information and recommendations
should be communicated to them as well as some protective equipment, such as dust masks,
as relevant.

29

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1080

4.3. Protection of the environment

1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127

(126) Large quantities of NORM may be present in the environment in form of mixedmaterial together with other contaminants. Through the time, different geochemical andphysical processes in the environment disturb the NORM radionuclides equilibrium. It is wellknown that mechanisms such as selective dispersion, leaching and transfer, fractionation,
bioaccumulation, and reaction with other contaminants can result in changes inenvironmental impact over time. In this kind of environmental exposure, it can be difficult touse a simple approach for risk assessments to evaluate the possible risk and effects for the
non-human species.
(127) The optimisation process should address the protection of the environment, i.e. theprotection of non-human species and not only the prevention of exposure of humans throughenvironmental pathways (ICRP, 2007a). Mechanisms to control releases of effluents, inparticular, can be informed by the prediction of dose for non-human biota. The selected
controls, may, or may not, be specifically driven by radiological protection for non-humanspecies, but the relative contribution for different options is useful information. However, theinformation on elevated NORM activity concentration in the certain environmental
compartment does not necessarily mean effects in non-human species, and the assessment of
impact must consider a variety of factors beyond just the estimated dose.
(128) Over last decades, considerable international and national efforts have been made to
develop an approach for radiological protection of the environment. To raise awareness about
radioactivity in industrial activities has become important at both national and international
levels. Industries involving NORM have been generally following common standards toprotect the environment from other pollutants than radioactivity. Depending on the legal
requirements, an environmental impact assessments (EIA) may be performed to demonstratecompliance with environmental standards. Radiological impact from NORM should be
included in an EIA. In situations where there is not the requirement to perform an EIA, aspecific assessment for NORM should be considered including both radiological and nonradiological impact and provide an input to decisions on controls.
(129) The EIA should consider the total impact of NORM activity, which for the specificpurpose of protecting the environment from the harmful effects of radiation entails:(a) Radiological characterisation of NORM discharge, including the data on background
NORM levels;(b) Identification of environmental pathways and mobility of radionuclides;(c) Analyses of key non-human species uptake;(d) Modelling and evaluation of potential radiation effects to doses by using the approachwith Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs), Representative Organism and thecorresponding bands of derived consideration reference levels (DCRL), or specificenvironmental reference levels derived for the purpose of the assessment (ICRP, 2008,2014b);(e) Risk estimation, taking into account the actual species present or likely to be present, andmanagement using the appropriate reference levels to inform optimisation decisions.
(130) For radiological characterisation of NORM released in the environment, it isnecessary to perform the site-specific analysis of radionuclides with respect to their physicaland chemical forms and activity concentrations in source, but also at environmental media ofconcern (air, water, sediment, soil). To be able to assess exposure of non-human species, it isfurther necessary to identify the mobility of radionuclides, their spatial and temporalvariation, environmental pathways to plants and animals and their bioavailability. An
approach with reference animals and plants (RAPs) and derived consideration reference
30

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149

levels has been developed (ICRP, 2008, 2014b). Dosimetry models to calculate specificexposure doses from chosen radionuclides and for ecosystems and organisms of concerns
have been available for site-specific use. A degree of precaution may be considered necessary
because of the importance of the site or habitat, or the importance of the actual species
present or likely to be present. It is important to note that, in many cases, other constituentsare which present hazards to plants and animals will also be present. The Commission
emphasises its recommendations that an all hazard approach be undertaken.
(131) Regarding dose criteria for protection of non-human species, risk characterisationand proper optimisation, bands of environmental derived consideration reference levels canbe considered as reference dose rates intervals within which there is some chance ofdeleterious effect from ionising radiation occurring to individuals of that type of RAPs.
(132) The EIA can be used as a basis for the justification of actions aiming at theprotection of non-human species, practically of the need to further restrict discharges. The
involvement of stakeholders is recommended. The long-term preservation of the environmentis a global concern of the society, to which the application of the ethical values of radiation
protection can usefully contribute.
(133) When dealing with NORM discharges in the environment, special requisites
concerning radionuclides, time interval for analysis, samples to be analysed, organisms ofconcern, record keeping, and monitoring plan should be specified by considered in order toensure the protection of the non-human species. Long-term environmental monitoring shouldbe performed for regular check if the protection criteria are still met.

31

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184

5. CONCLUSIONS(134) NORM in industrial processes may be an issue from a radiological protection pointof view. The corresponding industries are diverse, they do not correspond to a sector in itself,
and they are generally big industries of economic importance. The way to address
radiological protection in industries involving NORM has been a concern for some decades.
It is a matter of justice and equity, which are ethical values of the system of radiologicalprotection, to consider radiological aspects as well as other industrial and chemical hazards.
Doses from industries involving NORM are variable, but they can be comparable, or greater
than, those arising from other human activities already applying the system of radiologicalprotection.
(135) Industries involving NORM are generally licenced, although in most cases not forradiological purposes, and these industries are used to managing risks. They should be able toapply the criteria and requisites set for radiological protection purpose. However, experience
shows that the system of radiological protection is very specific and perceived to be difficult
to include in the management of other hazards. In such a context, the Commission
recommends a realistic and pragmatic attitude.
(136) Industrial processes using NORM, although diverse, have specificities that have tobe taken into account in a protection strategy. Often, such industries have been on-going for along time, while the concern about radiological protection is relatively recent. They are multihazards situations and in most cases the radiological risk is not dominant. While industries
involving NORM have experience in risk management, they have generally a poor awarenessof radiological protection; this can and should be developed. Industries involving NORM cancause damages requiring remediation; however, they present no real prospect of aradiological emergency.
(137) Industries involving NORM may need to be controlled, and the system of protection,
including the principles of justification and optimisation of the protection, as well as thecorresponding dose criteria and requisites, can be applied. In order to be adapted to thefeatures of industries involving NORM, the Commission recommends considering as astarting point the protection strategies already implemented by these industries to manage thehazards they are facing and then estimating, after characterisation, the need for further action
for the protection against radiation. Such integrated approach can then be graded with aproper balance between the different hazards, adopting a reasonable and prudent attitude andtaking into account economic and societal consideration. The involvement of the relevant
stakeholder in the decision process is also crucial.

32

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1185

REFERENCES

1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236

EC, 1999a. Establishment of Reference Levels for Regulatory Control of Workplaces where Materials
are Processed which Contain Enhanced Levels of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, DirectorateGeneral, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Radiation Protection 107.
EC, 1999b. Radiological Protection Principles concerning the Natural Radioactivity of Building
Materials Directorate-General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection EC, Radiation
protection 112.
EURATOM, 2013. Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic
safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation.
IAEA, 1996. International Basic Safety Standards for the Protection against Ionizing Radiation andfor the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No 115, 1996, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA, 2005. Environmental and Source Monitoring for Purposes of Radiation Protection, Safety
Guide No.° RS-G-1.8. IAEA, Vienna
IAEA, 2006. Assessing the Need for Radiation Protection Measures in Works Involving Minerals and
Raw Materials. Safety Reports Series No. 49, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA, 2010. Proceedings of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material Symposium (NORM VI),
STI/PUB/1497, Marrakech, Morocco, March 2010. IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA,2015, Protection of the Public against Exposure Indoors due to Radon and Other Natural
Sources of Radiation. Specific Safety Guide No. SSG-32. IAEA. Vienna
ICRP, 1977. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann. ICRP 1(3).
ICRP, 1983. Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Optimization of Radiation Protection. ICRP Publication 37.
Ann. ICRP 10 (2/3).
ICRP, 1984. Principles for Limiting Exposure of the Public to Natural Sources of Radiation. ICRP
Publication 39. Ann. ICRP 14(1).
ICRP, 1990. Optimization and Decision Making in Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 55.
Ann. ICRP 20 (1).
ICRP, 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21(1–3).
ICRP, 1997. General Principles for the Radiation Protection of Workers. ICRP Publication 75. Ann.
ICRP 27(1).
ICRP, 1999. Protection of the Public in Situations of Prolonged Radiation Exposure. ICRP
Publication 82. Ann. ICRP 29(1-2).
ICRP, 2006. The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process. ICRP Publication
101, Part 2. Ann. ICRP 36(3).
ICRP, 2007a. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4).
ICRP, 2007b. Scope of Radiological Protection Control Measures. ICRP Publication 104. Ann. ICRP
37 (5).
ICRP, 2008. Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP
Publication 108. Ann. ICRP 38 (4-6).
ICRP, 2010. Lung Cancer Risk from Radon and Progeny and Statement on Radon. ICRP Publication
115, Ann. ICRP 40(1).
ICRP, 2014a. Protection of the Environment under Different Exposure Situations. ICRP Publication
124, Ann. ICRP 43(1).
ICRP, 2014b. Radiological Protection against Radon Exposure. ICRP Publication 126. Ann. ICRP
43(3).
ICRP, 2016. Radiological Protection from Cosmic Radiation in Aviation. ICRP Publication 132. Ann.
ICRP 45(1).
ICRP, 2017. Occupational intakes of radionuclides: Part 3. ICRP Publication 137. Ann. ICRP
46(3/4).
ICRP, 2018. Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 138.
Ann. ICRP 47(1).

33DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254

Miller, H.T., Bruce, E.D. and Cook, L.M., 1991. Management of occupational and environmental
exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), 1991 SPE Annual TechnicalConference and EXhibition., Pt. 2, Production Operations and Engineering. Soc of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Richardson, TX, USA, 627-636.
Monicard, R., Dumas, H., 1952. Radioactivité des roches sédimentaires, du pétrole brut et des eaux degisements. Institut Français du Pétrole 7, p. 96-102.
Schmidt A. P., 2000, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the gas and oil industry, Origin,transport and deposition of stable lead and 210Pb from Dutch gas reservoirs, Department ofGeochemistry, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan, Netherland.
UNSCEAR, 1977, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 1977
report to the General Assembly.
UNSCEAR, 1982. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1982
Report to the General Assembly, Annexe C.
UNSCEAR, 2008. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2008
report to the General Assembly, Annexe B.
UNSCEAR, 2016. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2016
report to the General Assembly, Annexe B.

34

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302

ANNEX A.

ACTIVITIES GIVING RISE TO NORM EXPOSURES(A 1) The main activities giving rise to NORM exposure are the following.
(A 2) Extraction of rare earth elements. The most important source of rare earth
elements are monazite (Ce, La, Nd, Th)PO4 and bastnaesite. The crystal structure of monazite
accepts uranium and thorium and is the most common radioactive mineral on Earth. Activity
concentration ranges from 5,000 – 350,000 Bq kg-1 of 232Th, and 10,000 – 50,000 Bq kg-1 of
238U (UNSCEAR, 2008). During the extraction process to obtain rare earth elements (bymechanical or chemical means), inhalation of dust and external gamma radiation to workers
may occur. Furthermore, effluents, residues and waste from the extraction process containthorium, radium and uranium at concentration higher than in the feedstock (EC, 1999a).
Waste in the form of mill tailing can be used for landfill material or may need specificmanagement.
(A 3) Production and use of metallic thorium and its compounds. Thorium under anoxide form occurs in many minerals, notably monazite. It can be extracted by concentratingminerals and decomposing them with acid to obtain thorium salts; which is the raw material
for the production thorium under metallic form. Thorium is used in a number of materials,
usually as an additive (e.g. thoriated tungsten isolated welding electrodes, that usually contain
100,000 Bq kg-1 of 232Th and 228Th (EC, 1999a)) or alloy (e.g. magnesium thorium used in jetengines; activity about 70,000 Bq kg-1) and as thorium nitrate in the manufacture of gas
mantles. Small quantities of thorium can be found in many products: glass, airport runaway
lights, lamp starters etc. Producing material containing thorium can give rise to external
gamma exposure and internal exposure through the inhalation of dust. The process also
generates solid wastes and effluents that may need to be monitored and controlled.
(A 4) Mining and processing of ores (other than uranium). According to International
Labour Organization, mining is an extensive industry that account for about 1 % of the world
workforce (that is to say about 30 million workers, including some 12 million in the coalmining). The main source of exposure in mining operation is radon, however, exposure due
to long-term radionuclides through gamma external exposure and the inhalation and ingestionof mineral dusts can be important in certain situations.
(A 5) The processing of ores may be also concerned by the use of NORM and theexposure situations for workers differ considerably with respect to the type of industry, theconditions at workplaces, the radionuclides involved and their physical and chemical forms
etc. The natural radionuclides involved in extractive industries end up in the products and/orin the effluents and/or wastes. Sediment discharges in waste water into the environment havebeen measured with activity up to 55,000 Bq kg-1 of 226Ra and 15,000 Bq kg-1 of 228Ra(IAEA, 2003).
(A 6) Extraction of oil and gas. The water contained in oil and gas geological formations
contains 228Ra, 226Ra and 224Ra dissolved from the reservoir rock, together with their decay
progenies. When this water is brought to the surface with the oil and gas, changes intemperature and pressure can lead to the precipitation of radium rich sulphate and calcium
carbonate scales on the inner walls of production equipment (pipes, valves, pumps etc.).
Depending on the age of the scale, significant amount of 210Pb and 228Th may grow in with
their respective radioactive parents (IAEA, 2006). In any case, the activity concentrations inscale are difficult to predict and activity concentration has been reported as being less than
1,000 to around 1,000,000 Bq kg-1 of 226Ra (EC, 1999a). The radium isotopes and theirprogeny can also appear in sludges in separators and skimmer tanks (more details can befound in Table 5 of IAEA (2003)). The main radiological protection issue associated with thescale are external gamma exposure of workers, especially where scales are deposited and35

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313

internal exposure by staff removing the scale during maintenance and decommissioning.
Figures related to activity concentration in oil, gas, scale and sludge are given in Table A.1(IAEA, 2003, 2011).
(A 7) Operators may try to prevent deposition of scales through the application ofchemical scale inhibitors in the water. As a result, the radium isotopes will pass through the
production system and be released with the produced water. In the same way, the newtechnique of ‘fracking’ (hydraulic fracturing) for gas production also releases NORM in drill
cuttings and water. For example, US Geological Survey shows median activity concentration
for produced water of 200 Bq L-1 (USGS, 2011).
Table A.1. Range of concentrations of radionuclides in oil, gas and by-products.
238

U
Ra

226

210

Po
Pb

Crude oil
(Bq kg-1)
0.0001 – 10
0.1 – 40Natural gas(Bq m-3)

0 – 100.002 – 0.08
0.005 – 0.02

210

222

Rn
Th
228
Ra
232

224

Ra

1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337

3 – 17
0.3 – 2
3 – 17

Produced water(Bq L-1)
0.0003 – 0.1
0.002 – 1200

Hard scale(Bq kg-1)
1 – 500
100 – 15,000,000

Sludge(Bq kg-1)
5 – 105 – 800,000

0.05 – 190

20 – 1500
20 – 75,000

4 – 160,000
100 – 1,300,000

0.0003 – 0.001
0.3 – 180

1–2
50 – 2,800,000

2 – 10500 – 50,000

5 – 200,000

0.5 – 40

(A 8) Manufacture of titanium dioxide. Titanium can be extracted from ilmenite(which contain monazite as impurity) and rutile which may contain elevated levels of both232
Th and 238U. The radiological exposure from titanium dioxide production varies with thetype and source of ore and the process. Ore concentration activity of 238U and 232Th ranges
from 7 to 9,000 Bq kg-1 (EC, 1999a). The separation process could give rise to radiologicalhazards from dust inhalation and external gamma radiation emanating from large stockpilesof material. Precipitate containing isotopes of radium may occur during the process and be
found in the waste (at activity concentration up to 1,600,000 Bq kg-1 (IAEA, 2006)).
(A 9) The phosphate processing industry. Phosphate rock is the starting material for the
production of all phosphate products and is the main source of phosphorous for fertilisers.
The radionuclides content of the ore varies greatly depending of its origin (IAEA, 2003) andis generally less than 3,000 Bq kg-1 of uranium. The phosphate processing can be divided into
the mining and milling of phosphate ore – there is no significant enhancement of activity
concentration during this phase, but exposure through inhalation and external exposure may
occur – and the manufacturing of phosphate products by wet or thermal process.
(A 10) Most phosphate rock is treated with sulphuric acid to produce phosphoric acid (wetprocess). The phosphoric acid can be combined with ammonia to make ammonium phosphate
which is the basis of mixed fertiliser. The production of phosphoric acid generates large
quantities of phosphogypsum – evidence suggests that radium isotopes are more readily
retained in the phosphogypsum (EC, 1999a). Phosphogypsum is also used as building
material and in agriculture. Environmental protection issues (regarding radiological impact
and toxicity) may arise from the disposal of phosphogypsum in stockpile or by discharge into
surface water bodies.

36

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386

(A 11) Furthermore, radium scales and sediments can be formed inside equipment during
the wet process, and the radium activity concentrations in the scales vary from values similar
to those in the original ore up to 1,000 times greater (IAEA, 2006), leading to possible
exposure by external gamma radiation and/or inhalation of dust during maintenance anddecommissioning.
(A 12) In the thermal process, phosphate is crushed and mixed with silica and coke to be
burnt in furnace at 1500° C. At this temperature, phosphorus vapour is produced and can becondensed and removed as liquid or solid. The elemental phosphorus can be used for the
production of high purity phosphoric acid and other phosphorus products. During thisprocess, volatile radionuclides like 210Pb and 210Po are produced as well and become
concentrated in the precipitator (typical concentration are 50,000 to 500,000 Bq kg-1 (EC,1999a)) while thorium and uranium are retained in the slag (activity concentration ranges
between 1 and 3000 Bq kg-1). Dust and slag may present NORM exposure to workers and to
public when used as construction material in cement.
(A 13) The zircon and zirconia industries. Zircon (or zirconium silicate) is recoveredfrom beach sands. The sand is pre-processed in very large quantities by gravimetric andelectromagnetic sorting to separate the mineral sands. Exposure from NORM to workers may
arise due to the inhalation of dust and external irradiation from the large amount of material.
When chemical processing of zircon is used, effluents may contain NORM. A very large
range of activity concentrations are reported for zirconium silicate, from 200 – 74,000 Bq kg1 of 238U and 400 – 40,000 Bq kg-1 of 232Th (EC, 1999a; IAEA, 2012). Most zircon sand isused as opacifier in fine ceramics, enamels, glazes and sanitary ware. Zircon sands can also
be manufactured as refractory component by mixing the sand with alumina and sodium
carbonate and smelting the mixture. 210Pb and 210Po are volatilised and end up in the fume
collection system (up to 200,000 Bq kg-1 of 210Pb and 600,000 Bq kg-1 of 210Po (IAEA,
2006)).
(A 14) Production of metal. Largely depending on the origin of metal ore, the extractionof many metals may give rise to exposure to NORM because smelting and refining at hightemperatures may volatilise 210Pb and 210Po from ore that can lead to exposure by inhalation
during the process and later when these radionuclides have been precipitated andconcentrated (up to 200,000 Bq kg-1 (IAEA, 2006, 2013)). Non-volatile radionuclides may beconcentrated in the slag (concentration range from less than 1000 to more than 10,000 Bq kg1). Such exposures could be found in the production of tin, copper, iron, steel, aluminium,
niobium/tantalum, bismuth, etc.
(A 15) Extraction and combustion of coal. Most fossil fuels and notably coal containuranium and thorium and their decay products, as well as 40K. The activity concentrations are
generally not elevated and depend on the region of origin and its geology (examples of
figures are given in p. 184 of UNSCEAR (2016)). However, UNSCEAR 2016 estimated thatoccupational exposure due to coal mining was 23,000 man.Sv for the 2002-2003 period andthat annual average effective dose for Chinese coal miners (90% of the workforce) was 2.75
mSv per year. Due to the amount of material, the quantities of radionuclides involved arenoteworthy. For example, over 8,000 millions of tons of coals where extracted in 2014
(according to British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy) and by considering thelower values of 4 ppm of uranium and 10 ppm of thorium, 32,000 tons of uranium and80,000 tons of thorium can be considered as being extracted as well.
(A 16) The combustion of coal fuel to produce heat and electricity will generate fly ash
and the heavier bottom ash or slag. The concentration of radionuclides in the bottom ash andslag tends to be higher than in the coal (around 10 times), but generally do not exceed 5,000
Bq kg-1 (IAEA, 2006) – range of radionuclides activities in ashes are presented in Table A.2
37

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394

(UNSCEAR, 1982). The volatile materials such as lead and polonium can be released to theatmosphere or, in modern power stations, retained and can accumulate in fly ash as well as
the inner surface of the burner (210Po activity concentration above 100,000 Bq kg-1 in thedeposited scale have been reported). Gas desulphurisation results in additional sludge andgypsum. The use of coal combustion residues (ash, gypsum) in cement or concrete is aworldwide practice.
Table A.2. Ranges of radionuclides activities in coal ash and slag.
Bottom ash (slag)
Fly ash (collected)
Fly ash (escaping)

1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411

Potassium(Bq kg-1)
240 – 1200
260 – 1500
260

Uranium series(Bq kg-1)
48 – 3900
30 – 2000
20 – 5500(A 17) Water treatment. Treatment of underground water is a common practice toremove salts and other contaminants. Various processes may be used; such as filters or ion
exchange resins. Radionuclides of natural origin present in the water may accumulate inwater treatment wastes (filter sludge). The activity concentration in such waste is generally
moderated but can reach 10,000 Bq kg-1 (IAEA, 2006).
(A 18) Building materials. The use of some building materials may lead to elevatedindoor radiation levels when they contain elevated levels of radionuclides including
particularly 226Ra, 232Th and 40K. The building material may be of natural origin or containmaterials derived from industrial processes such as those listed above. Values for activity
concentration in Bq kg-1 in some building materials are given in Table A.3 (UNSCEAR,
1982; IAEA, 2003).
(A 19) Activity concentration guidelines for the use of NORM in building material havebeen developed in Europe through the use of an Activity Concentration Index, ACI,
considering 226Ra, 232Th and 40K activity in the material (EC, 1999b; EURATOM, 2013).
Table A.3. Examples of activity concentration in Bq kg-1 for some building materials.
Material

1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417

Thorium series(Bq kg-1)
44 – 560
30 – 300
100 – 160

226

Concrete
Aerated concrete
Clay bricks
Sand-lime bricks and sandstone
Natural gypsum
GraniteLithoid tuff
Pumice stone
CementTiles
PhosphogypsumRa
1 – 250
11,0001 – 200
18,000<1 – 70100
130
130
7 – 180
30 – 200
4 – 700

Blast furnace slag stone and cement

30 – 120232

Th
1 – 190
1 – 220
1 – 200
11,000<1 – 10080
120
130
7 – 240
20 – 200
19,00030 – 220

40

K
5 –1570
180 – 1,600
60 – 2,000
5 – 700
7 – 280
1,200
1,500
1,100
24 – 850
160 – 1,410
25 – 120-(A 20) Legacy sites. There are also several sites with residues from former installations
around the world. Most of these sites are contaminated with natural radionuclides fromformer industries involving NORM. In some cases, these sites have been identified andsuccessfully remediated. However, it is almost certain that a significant number ofcontaminated sites from former industries involving NORM have yet to even be identified.

38

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423

(A 21) From the above paragraphs, industries involving NORM process a wide range ofraw materials with large variation of activity concentrations, producing a variety of products,
by-products and wastes, which also have an even larger variation in activity concentrations.
These industries may or may not be of concern depending on the activity concentrations in
the raw materials handled, the processes adopted, the uses to which final products are put, there-use and recycling of residues and the disposal of wastes.

1424

A.1. References

1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454

EC, 1999a. Establishment of Reference Levels for Regulatory Control of Workplaces where Materials
are Processed which Contain Enhanced Levels of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides, DirectorateGeneral, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Radiation Protection 107.
EC, 1999b, Radiological Protection Principles concerning the Natural Radioactivity of Building
Materials Directorate-General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection EC, Radiation
protection 112.
EURATOM, 2013. Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic
safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation.
IAEA, 2003. Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material(NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation, Technical Reports Series No. 419, IAEA,
Vienna.
IAEA, 2006. Assessing the Need for Radiation Protection Measures in Works Involving Minerals and
Raw Materials. Safety Reports Series No. 49, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA, 2011. Radiation Protection and NORM Residue Management in the Production of Rare Earths
from Thorium Containing Minerals, Safety Reports Series No. 68, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA, 2012. Radiation Protection and NORM Residue Management in the Titanium Dioxide andRelated Industries, Safety Reports Series No. 76, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA, 2013. Radiation Protection and Management of NORM Residues in the Phosphate Industry,
Safety Reports Series No. 78, IAEA, Vienna.
UNSCEAR, 1982. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1982
Report to the General Assembly, Annexe C.
UNSCEAR, 2008. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2008
report to the General Assembly, Annexe B.
UNSCEAR, 2016. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2016
report to the General Assembly, Annexe B.
USGS, 2011. Rowan, E.L., Engle, M.A., Kirby, C.S., and Kraemer, T.F., Radium Content of Oil and
Gas-Field Produced Waters in the Northern Appalachian Basin (USA), Summary and Discussionof data, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5135, 31 p. (available
online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5135/).

39

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCEGLOSSARY

1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487

Adventitious
Happening as a result of an external factor or chance rather than design or inherent
nature. In this report, the word is used in a sense close to inadvertent, coincidental,
unintentional, unintended.
Categories of exposure
The Commission distinguishes between three categories of radiation exposure forhumans: occupational, public, and medical, and also considers environmental
exposure for flora and fauna. Distinction made between human and non-human biota
takes into account the context in which they are exposed.
Contamination
The presence of unwanted levels of radioactive material on or in structures, areas,
objects, biota and people.
Discharge
Controlled release of (usually gaseous or liquid) radioactive material to theenvironment.
Dose criteria
Quantitative values for the practical implementation of the radiological protection
system, expressed in terms of dose or derived quantities.
Effluent
Fluid - treated or untreated - that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial
outfall.
Emergency exposure situations
An exposure situation resulting from a loss of control of a source, or from intentional
misuse of a source, which requires urgent and timely actions in order to avoid or
mitigate exposure.
EmployerAn organisation, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or
private institution, group, political or administrative entity, or other persons
designated in accordance with national legislation, with recognized responsibility,commitment, and duties towards a worker in her or his employment by virtue of amutually agreed relationship. A self-employed person is regarded as being both an
employer and a worker.

1489
1490

Environmental exposure
Radiation exposure of biota in the natural environment resulting from humanactivities.

1491

Environmental reference level

1488

40

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499

This term refers to the Derived Consideration Reference Level (DCRL) introduced in
Publication 108, which is a band of dose rate within which there is likely to be somechance of deleterious effects of ionising radiation occurring to individuals of that typeof reference animal or plant (derived from a knowledge of defined expectedbiological effects for that type of organism) that, when considered together with otherrelevant information, can be used as a point of reference to optimise the level of effort
expended on environmental protection, dependent upon the overall management
objectives and the relevant exposure situation.

1500

Existing exposure situations
An exposure situation resulting from a source that already exists, with no intention to
use the source for its radioactive properties, before a decision to control the resulting
exposure is taken. Decisions on the need to control the exposure may be necessary
but not urgent.

1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523

Exposure pathway
A route by which radiation or radionuclides can reach humans and non-human biota
and cause exposure.
Graded approach
The scheme recommended for implementing the system of radiological protection in
a way that is proportionate to the magnitude and likelihood of the risk, and thecomplexity of the exposure situation and the prevailing circumstances.
Medical exposure
Exposure incurred by patients as part of their own medical or dental diagnosis ortreatment, by persons, other than those occupationally exposed, knowingly, while
voluntarily helping in the support and comfort of patients; and by volunteers in a
programme of biomedical research involving their exposure.
Member of the public
Any individual who is subject to a public exposure.
NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material)
Material containing no significant amounts of radionuclides other than naturally
occurring radionuclides, in which the activity concentrations of the naturally
occurring radionuclides have been changed by some process and giving rise toenhanced exposure to human and non-human species.

1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530

Occupational exposure
Exposure incurred by individuals as a result of their work in circumstances for which
the exposure can be reasonably considered as deserving to be managed individually.
This has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. There is no single answer that isalways applicable. It is a value judgement. Factors to be considered include the levelof exposure, the potential for unforeseen circumstances or large exposures because of
the characteristics of the source.

1531

Operating management

1524

41

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1532
1533
1534

The person or group of persons that directs, controls, and assesses an organization at
the highest level. Many different terms are used, including chief executive officer,
director general, managing director, and executive group.

1535

Planned exposure situations
An exposure situation resulting from the deliberate introduction and operation ofradiation sources, used for their radioactive properties. For this type of situation, theuse of the source is understood, and as such the exposures can be anticipated andcontrolled from the beginning.

1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571

Principle of justification
Decisions that alter (i.e. introduce, reduce or remove) the radiation exposure situation
should, overall, do more good than harm. This means that, by introducing a newradiation source, or by overall reducing existing or emergency exposures, one should
achieve sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset any harm including radiation
detriment to humans and the environment.
Principle of optimisation
The likelihood of incurring exposures, and the magnitude of their individual doses,
should be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account societal,
economic and environmental factors. In order to avoid inequities in the dose
distribution, there must be consideration of the number of people exposed andrestrictions on individual doses.
Protection strategy
The set of combined protective actions implemented, for a given exposure situationand prevailing circumstance, to keep or reduce exposure as low as reasonably
achievable.
Protective action
Action taken in an exposure situation to reduce or prevent exposure. The action canbe taken at the source, at points in the exposure pathway, or occasionally bymodifying the location, habits or working conditions of the exposed individuals.
Public exposure
Exposure incurred by individuals from radiation sources, other than occupational andmedical exposure.
Reference animal or plant
A hypothetical entity, with the assumed basic biological characteristics of a particular
type of animal or plant, as described to the generality of the taxonomic level of
Family, with defined anatomical, physiological, and life-history properties, that canbe used for the purposes of relating exposure to dose, and dose to effects, for that typeof living organism.
Reference level
The value of dose used to drive the optimisation process in existing and emergency
exposure situations. The value of a reference level will be selected within the bands

42

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1572
1573
1574
1575

recommended by the Commission according to the prevailing circumstances. This
selection should consider the actual individual dose distribution, with the objective ofidentifying those exposures that warrant specific attention and should be reduced as
low as reasonably achievable.

1576

Representative organism (non-human biota)
An organism or group of organisms receiving a dose that is representative of thedoses to the most exposed individuals in an exposed group from a given source,
excluding extreme habits.

1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583

ResidueRadioactive materials that have remained in the environment from early operations
and from accidents. Residue from one industry may be used as feedstock in anotherindustry, and as such are not classified as waste.

1585
1586

Stakeholder
A stakeholder is a person, a group or organisation with an interest or concern in anissue.

1587

Waste

1584

1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593

Any radioactive material that will be or has been discarded, being of no further use.
WorkerAny person who is employed or self-employed, whether full time, part time or
temporarily, by an employer, and who has recognised rights and duties in relation to
her/his job.

1594

43

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCEACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611

At its meeting in Berlin (Germany) in October 2007, the Main Commission of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) approved the formation of a
Task Group 76, reporting to Committee 4, to develop guidance on radiological protection
against exposure from naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).
The terms of reference of the Task Group were to develop a report on the application of the2007 Commission’s recommendations (ICRP, 2007a) on radiological protection of workers,
the public and environment to exposures resulting from industrial processes with NORM.
The aim of the Task Group was to develop recommendations to cover the broad range ofactivities associated with the processing, manufacturing or use and disposal of materials withenhanced levels of naturally occurring radionuclides. The report should also clarify the issues
concerning the type of exposure situation, the categories of exposure, and the basic principles
to be applied for the management of NORM.
The initial membership of Task Group 76 was as follows:
P. Burn, Chair
A. Canoba
A. Liland

1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618

L. Setlow

The corresponding members were:
Å. Wiklund

D. Wymer

A new membership was designated in 2013, as follow:
J-F. Lecomte, Chair
D. da Costa Lauria
P. Egidi

1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636

G. Loriot
M. Markkanen
S. Romanov

A. Liland
F. LiuM. Markkanen

P. Shaw (2013-2017)

Corresponding members were:
P.P. Haridasan (2013-2015) H.B. Okyar (2015-2017)

S. Mundigl

Committee 4 critical reviewers were:
A. Canoba

T. Pather (2013-2017)

Gillian Hirth (2017-2021)

Main Commission critical reviewers were:
C-M. Larsson

S. Romanov

In addition, Sylvain Andresz (CEPN) acted as secretary of the Task Group and provided
fruitful scientific assistance. A helpful contribution was also received from Luiz Matta,
Jelena Popic, Bo Wang, a French mirror group, and through the ICRP consulting process.
The membership of the Main Commission at the time of approval of this publication was:
44

DRAFT REPORT FOR CONSULTATION: DO NOT REFERENCE
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653

1654
1655

1656
1657

Chair: C. Cousins, UK
Vice-Chair: J. Lochard, France
Scientific Secretary: C.H. Clement, Canada; sci.sec@icrp.org
K.E. Applegate, USA
S. Bouffler, UK
K.W. Cho, Korea
D.A. Cool, USA
J.D. Harrison, UK
M. Kai, Japan
C.-M. Larsson, Australia
D. Laurier, France

S. Liu, China
S. Romanov, Russia
W. Rühm, Germany

Emeritus Members
R.H. Clarke, UK
F.A. Mettler Jr., USA
R.J. Pentreath, UK
R.J. Preston, USA
C. Streffer, Germany
E. Vaño, Spain

The membership of Committee 4 during the period of preparation of this report was:(2009-2013)
J. Lochard (Chair)
W. Weiss (Vice-Chair)
P. Burns
P. Carboneras
D.A. Cool
T. Homma

M. KaiJ-F. Lecomte (Secretary)
H. LiuS. LiuS. Magnusson
G. Massera

A. McGarryK. Mrabit
S. Shinkarev
J. Simmonds
A. Tsela
W. Zeller(2013-2017)
D.A. Cool (Chair)
K-W. Cho (Vice-Chair)
F. BochudM. Boyd
A. Canoba
M. Doruff

E. Gallego
T. Homma
M. KaiJ-F. Lecomte (Secretary)
S. LiuA. McGarry

A. Nisbet
D. Oughton
T. PatherS. Shinkarev
J. Takala(2017-2021)
D.A. Cool (Chair)
K.A. Higley (Vice-Chair)
N. BanF. BochudM. Boyd
A. Canoba

D. Copplestone
E. Gallego
G. Hirth
T. Homma
C. KochJ-F. Lecomte (Secretary)

Y. MaoN. Martinez
A. Nisbet
T. Schneider
S. Shinkarev
J. Takala1658

45